Last week’s strategy: The Open Loop

Start with something unresolved. The brain can’t let go.

Anyone try it? Did you open a loop in your first 10 seconds?

What happened?

Week 2 taught you something uncomfortable: there is no single right answer.

• Lab-grown meat? Lower emissions but massive energy.
• Plant-based? Depends on water, land, transport.
• Traditional farming? Cultural value vs. carbon cost.

The numbers changed depending on what you measured.

That wasn’t confusion — that was your first encounter with system complexity. Today, you’ll get a tool to cut through it.

Last week: “Which food is greenest?” — and the answer kept shifting.

This week: “How do you measure the real cost of what you wear?”

Same complexity. New tool: Life Cycle Assessment.

LCA gives you a framework for deciding where to draw the line when measuring environmental impact. That tool is portable — it works for food, fashion, buildings, energy, everything.

Your toolkit is growing: Spectacle Formula → Complexity → now: System Boundaries.

The average Hong Konger throws away 30kg of textiles per year.

That’s 110,000 tonnes of clothing in landfills — annually.

Your closet probably contains clothes you haven’t worn in over a year. Some still have tags on.

Now let’s talk about the life cycle of stuff.

Which is better for the environment?

1. A Beyond Burger (plant-based)

2. A chicken breast

Vote now.

A Beyond Burger produces approximately 3.5 kg CO₂e per kg.

A chicken breast produces approximately 4.5-6 kg CO₂e per kg.

So Beyond Burger wins… right?

Not so fast.

Beyond Burger requires heavy processing — extrusion, isolation, flavoring.

A 2023 study found that when you account for full supply chain processing, some plant-based meats approach or exceed chicken’s footprint.

And chicken? It’s the lowest-emission meat by a wide margin — 5-10x lower than beef.

The point: “Plant-based” doesn’t automatically mean “green.” You have to check the actual numbers.

Sources: Poore & Nemecek (2018) Science; Saget et al. (2021) Nature Food; UC Davis LCA studies

If your gut can be wrong about something as simple as a burger…

What else might you be wrong about?

Assumption: Organic cotton is more sustainable.

Reality: Organic cotton uses up to 91% more water than conventional cotton in many regions, with 20-50% lower yields — meaning more land required.

Organic avoids pesticides (good), but trades one environmental problem for another.

Source: Textile Exchange Organic Cotton Market Report; Mekonnen & Hoekstra (2011) Water Footprint Network

Assumption: Donating clothes = recycling = good.

Reality: Only about 10-15% of donated clothes are resold locally. Much of the rest is shipped to Ghana, Chile, and Kenya — where up to 40% ends up in landfills because the volume overwhelms local markets.

You’re not recycling. You’re exporting your guilt.

Source: OR Foundation (2022); ABC News “Dead White Man’s Clothes”; UNEP (2023)

Assumption: Reusable cotton bags are better than plastic.

Reality: A cotton tote must be used 131 times to have lower climate impact than a single disposable plastic bag.

An organic cotton tote? 20,000 times.

How many of you have used the same tote 131 times?

Source: UK Environment Agency Life Cycle Assessment (2011)

Assumption: Local food = lower carbon footprint.

Reality: A tomato shipped from Spain to the UK produces less CO₂ than one grown in a heated British greenhouse.

Transport is often only 5-10% of food’s carbon footprint. Growing conditions matter more.

Source: Weber & Matthews (2008) Environmental Science & Technology; Poore & Nemecek (2018)

Assumption: Electric cars are always greener.

Reality: An EV charged on a coal-heavy grid (parts of China, Poland, India) can have comparable or higher lifecycle emissions than a fuel-efficient hybrid.

The car isn’t the whole story. The grid is.

Source: IEA Global EV Outlook (2023); Lifecycle assessments vary by region

Not to make you cynical.

Not to say “nothing matters.”

But to show you: the truth is complicated.

And complicated truths make better arguments.

The facts you just saw all share something:

They violate expectations.

Your brain can’t ignore information that contradicts what it “knows.”

This is your most powerful rhetorical tool.

Common Assumption + Contradicting Fact + Source = “Wait, what?”

Once you have their attention, you can make your argument.

Without it, you’re just noise.

Always include your source. “Wait, what?” only works if it’s true.

The strongest debaters acknowledge complexity on their own side.

PRO-CLIMATE: “Yes, organic cotton uses more water. That’s why we advocate for systemic change, not just material substitution.”

PRO-DEVELOPMENT: “Yes, fast fashion has environmental costs. That’s why we push for innovation within the industry, not destruction of it.”

Acknowledging nuance makes you credible. Ignoring it makes you a propagandist.

I’m about to show you a detailed case study on denim production.

It will include a lot of facts. Some of it will feel like a textbook.

But there’s a reason.

As you listen, look for one key concept that anyone interested in fashion-related carbon emissions should walk away with:

Where do you draw the boundary?

I might do a small quiz before end of class.

Pay attention to what happens when you expand or contract the “system” you’re measuring.

All those numbers you just saw depend on one crucial decision:

Where do you draw the boundary of what you’re measuring?

Cradle-to-gate: Raw materials → Factory door

Cradle-to-grave: Raw materials → Consumer disposal

Cradle-to-cradle: Raw materials → Recycling → New product

Same product. Different boundaries. Completely different conclusions.

“40% of donated clothes end up in Ghanaian landfills.”

If your system boundary stops at “clothes donated” — recycling looks great.

If your system boundary extends to “where clothes actually end up” — you’re just exporting waste.

The boundary you choose determines the story you tell.

• Organic cotton looks good if you stop at pesticides. Looks worse if you include water usage.
• Recycling looks good if you stop at the donation bin. Looks worse if you follow it to Africa.
• Electric cars look good if you stop at tailpipe emissions. Depends on the grid if you include electricity source.

Anyone who gives you a simple answer is hiding their system boundary from you.

What is the single most important question to ask when someone tells you a product is “sustainable” or “green”?

Answer: “What system boundary are you using?”

Or more simply: “Sustainable compared to what, measured how, ending where?”

This tension defines every fashion sustainability debate.

“Hong Kong should impose a mandatory Extended Producer Responsibility scheme on all fashion retailers by 2030.”

(EPR = brands must take back and recycle/dispose of products they sell)

PRO-CLIMATE argues for. PRO-DEVELOPMENT argues against.

“Fast fashion isn’t free. Someone, somewhere is paying.”

— Lucy Siegle, journalist and author of To Die For: Is Fashion Wearing Out the World? (2011)

“The most sustainable garment is the one already in your wardrobe.”

— Orsola de Castro, co-founder of Fashion Revolution, Loved Clothes Last (2021)

“We are not asking brands to leave Bangladesh. We are asking them to stay — and pay fair wages.”

— Kalpona Akter, garment worker turned labor activist, Executive Director of the Bangladesh Center for Worker Solidarity (2019 interview, The Guardian)

“Fashion has always been about making beautiful things accessible. The question is how we do it responsibly.”

— Karl-Johan Persson, former CEO of H&M, responding to sustainability criticism (2019)

“Telling poor people to buy less is not a climate strategy. It’s class warfare disguised as environmentalism.”

— Pietra Rivoli, economist, author of The Travels of a T-Shirt in the Global Economy (2014 edition)

“When we closed one factory for violations, 3,000 workers lost their jobs. The activists celebrated. The workers didn’t.”

— Rubana Huq, President of BGMEA (Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers Association), 2022

All quotes verifiable via Google Scholar, The Guardian, or named publications. This is how you build credibility.

Your $15 H&M dress has a price tag.

It also has a shadow price — paid by someone else, somewhere else.

Sources: WRAP; Ellen MacArthur Foundation; UN Environment Programme

Scenario 1: A new policy requires all clothing sold in Hong Kong to display its full carbon footprint on the label. Your favourite $99 H&M dress now shows: “This garment produced 33kg of CO₂.” Your sustainable alternative costs $800.

Do you still buy the cheap dress?

Scenario 2: Closing all fast fashion factories in Bangladesh would eliminate 4 million jobs — mostly held by women who are their families’ sole earners. But those factories dump 22,000 tonnes of toxic waste into rivers annually.

Do you support the closure?

Fact + Human Story + Stakes = Spectacle

Don’t say: “Fast fashion causes pollution.”

Say: “The river in Dhaka where they dye your $15 dress runs blue one day, red the next. Children play in that water. You wear their poisoned river.”

Don’t say: “We should buy less clothing.”

Say: “In 1960, the average American bought 25 garments a year. Now: 70. Your great-grandmother had one Sunday dress. You have a closet crisis.”

Don’t say: “Fashion provides jobs.”

Say: “Fatima in Bangladesh earns $100 a month sewing clothes. It’s not much — but it’s more than her mother made as a farm laborer. She sends her daughter to school. Want to close the factory?”

Don’t say: “Sustainable fashion is expensive.”

Say: “A $200 organic cotton shirt is a ‘conscious choice’ for a HKU student. For a cleaner in Sham Shui Po, it’s a month’s food budget. Who gets to be ethical?”

Both stories are true. Both are the fashion industry.

Sources: BBC, Guardian, ILO, World Bank, Clean Clothes Campaign — all verifiable

1. What’s your stake? Why does your role/sector care about this outcome? What do you stand to gain or lose?

2. What’s your strongest evidence? What data, facts, or examples best support your position? Where might your evidence be weak?

3. Who wins? Who loses? If your side prevails, who benefits most — and who pays the price?

4. What would change your mind? What evidence or argument could genuinely shift your position?

5. What will your opponents say? Anticipate their strongest counterargument. How will you respond?

6. Where’s the common ground? Is there any compromise that both sides could accept?

Start Timer Reset Timer

“You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a great need for others to like you. You have considerable unused capacity that you haven’t turned to your advantage.”

85% of people rate this as “highly accurate” for them.

It’s the same text for everyone.

This is the Barnum Effect (Forer, 1949).

Statements that feel specific but apply to almost everyone create false intimacy. Horoscopes, psychics, personality tests — all exploit this.

The trick: moderate specificity + universal anxiety.

People remember the hits, forget the misses.

When a speaker said something like:

“Some of you are thinking, ‘This doesn’t affect me.’ But you’re also wondering if you’re doing enough…”

Did it feel personal? It wasn’t. It was statistical.

But it worked.

Try this in your next presentation:

“You probably have clothes in your closet you haven’t worn in months. Maybe some still have the tags on. You tell yourself you’ll wear them eventually — but part of you knows you’re lying to yourself.”

This sounds personal. It applies to 90% of your audience.

That’s the Barnum Slide: universal truths disguised as personal insights.

Use it to create instant connection before your argument.

Write one sentence that sounds personal but applies to everyone in the room.

Test it. Watch faces.

Environmental Footprint

• Water usage: Fashion consumes ~93 billion cubic meters of water annually (UNEP)
• Chemical pollution: 20% of industrial water pollution comes from textile dyeing (World Bank)
• Carbon emissions: 10% of global emissions, ~1.2 billion tonnes CO₂/year (Ellen MacArthur Foundation)

Resource Consumption

• Synthetic fibers: 60% of clothing contains plastic (polyester, nylon, acrylic)
• Cotton: 2.5% of global agricultural land, but 16% of insecticide use
• Microplastics: 500,000 tonnes of microfibers enter oceans annually from washing

Waste and Landfill

• One garbage truck of textiles landfilled/burned every second globally
• Average garment worn 7-10 times before disposal (McKinsey)
• Less than 1% of clothing recycled into new clothing (Ellen MacArthur)

Urgency in Fashion Reform

• Resource Intensity: 700 gallons of water for one cotton shirt
• Pollution: Dyeing and treatment chemicals contaminate waterways
• Waste: 92 million tonnes of textile waste created annually

Sustainable Fashion Benefits

• Waste Reduction: Circular models could reduce waste by 80%
• Lower Emissions: Sustainable production can cut carbon by 50%+
• Extended Use: Doubling garment lifespan cuts emissions 44%

Consumer Health & Ethics

• Chemical Exposure: Conventional textiles contain formaldehyde, heavy metals
• Fair Labor: Sustainable certifications require living wages
• Transparency: Supply chain visibility enables accountability

Economic Considerations

• Employment: Fashion employs 75 million people globally, mostly women
• Poverty Reduction: Garment work is entry point to formal economy
• Cost Challenges: Sustainable fashion 50-400% more expensive

Questioning Effectiveness

• Scale: Individual consumer choices have limited systemic impact
• Greenwashing: Many “sustainable” claims lack verification
• Priorities: Other sectors (energy, transport) have higher emissions

Innovation & Market Forces

• Technology: New materials, recycling tech emerging rapidly
• Market Demand: Consumer pressure driving brand changes
• Investment: $50B+ invested in sustainable fashion startups

LCA Stages

1. Goal and Scope Definition: Purpose, system boundaries, functional unit
2. Inventory Analysis: Energy inputs, material inputs, emissions, waste
3. Impact Assessment: Climate change, water use, toxicity, land use
4. Interpretation: Identify hotspots, compare alternatives, recommendations

Fashion LCA Considerations

• System boundary: Cradle-to-gate vs cradle-to-grave vs cradle-to-cradle
• Use phase: Consumer washing/drying often dominates energy use
• End of life: Landfill, incineration, recycling, resale — very different impacts
• Allocation: How to split impacts across co-products (e.g., cotton seeds)?

Water Usage

• One pair of jeans: 7,500-10,000 liters (cotton growing + dyeing + finishing)
• “Wash” effects (stone washing, acid washing) add 20-50 liters per garment
• Indigo dyeing requires multiple dip cycles

Chemical Use

• Synthetic indigo dyes (historically natural, now 95%+ synthetic)
• Finishing chemicals: softeners, anti-crease, water repellents
• Sandblasting (now largely banned) caused silicosis in workers

Energy Consumption

• Cotton cultivation: irrigation pumping, fertilizer production
• Spinning, weaving, dyeing: energy-intensive industrial processes
• Transport: Raw cotton → spinning → weaving → dyeing → cutting → sewing → retail

Recycling Challenges

• Blended fibers (cotton-elastane) difficult to separate
• Mechanical recycling shortens fibers, reduces quality
• Chemical recycling exists but not yet at scale
• Post-consumer denim often too degraded for fiber recovery

Note: Environmental data evolves. Always check for most recent LCA studies. Regional variations are significant.